Yet another set of meaninglessly libellous links (where my anti-virus software warned me that a "threat was detected") NOT proving BS claims about Ron Paul that lead to dead ends, posted by none other than tweedle-dumb.

Yet another set of meaninglessly libellous links (where my anti-virus software warned me that a "threat was detected") NOT proving BS claims about Ron Paul that lead to dead ends, posted by none other than tweedle-dumb.

International Business news is a reputable source of information. You just don't want to admit that Ron Paul is caught red-handed with his klan cloak with his NSA spying billionaire and top funder campaign advisor Peter Theil by his side.

Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA’s venture arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel and his firm, The Founders Fund. Dr. Alex Karp is Palantir’s CEO.

The technologies and know-how acquired over years of spying on suspected foreign terrorists and threats were turned against US citizens. In what became known last year as “Chamber-gate,” Palantir was outed by Anonymous as the lead outfit in a private espionage consortium, with security technology companies HBGaryand Berico; the groups spent months “creating electronic dossiers on political opponents of the Chamber through illicit means.”

The hacktivist collective Anonymous set out to take down the white supremacist American Third Party (A3P) in what they called “Operation Blitzkrieg” but they may have done much more.

In a document dump that includes private forum messages, emails, organization notes another other information the group found numerous connections between Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and A3P. According to the documents, Paul himself regularly met with many A3P members, engaged in conference calls with their board of directors and engaged in a “bridging tactic” between A3P and the Ron Paul Revolution.

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”

In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb. 12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.”

Accusations of racism and ties to neo-Nazi interests have plagued Paul since the 1990s and have re-surfaced during this campaign. So far Paul has issued standard denials, claiming not to have been aware of the ties between his camp and the racist right and denied authorship of a series of racist newsletters, despite confirmation from his closest staff that Paul signed off on every detail. So what’s Paul’s explanation now?

Yet another embarrassment for Poser Boy, who for now on will be known as known as "tinkerbell", whose floating around in denial somewhere in Almost Almost Land... It's Wednesday EST, and Poser Boy is still posing...

... there is often a distinction made between the racist Right, which emerged from the struggle to maintain slavery and segregation, and the “small-government” Right, which supposedly represents a respectable conservatism focused on the libertarian ideals of personal freedom and free-market principles...

...Thus, prominent leaders of the “libertarian” Right – the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Ron and Rand Paul – have opposed major legislative efforts to combat Southern segregation, typically citing the “liberty” of a white restaurant owner to bar black patrons as trumping the right of the patrons to be treated fairly.

Similarly, on Tuesday, the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the freedom of states and communities with a history of racial discrimination in voting to change their voting rules without having to get clearance from federal authorities as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and renewed in 2006) had required.

The right of these districts to set their own standards topped the power of Congress to require that the principle of one person, one vote be respected for black and brown people, according to the Court’s five right-wing justices. Thus, the libertarianism behind “small government” principles again supported the goal of white supremacy...

...This unholy alliance between the racists and the libertarians continues to this day with Republicans understanding that the votes of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities must be suppressed if the twin goals of the two principal elements of the Right are to control the future. That was the significance of Tuesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority to gut the Voting Rights Act. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Supreme Court’s War on Democracy.”]

Only if the votes of whites can be proportionately enhanced and the votes of minorities minimized can the Republican Party overcome the country’s demographic changes and retain government power that will both advance the interests of the racists and the free-marketeers.

That’s why Republican-controlled statehouses engaged in aggressive gerrymandering of congressional districts in 2010 and tried to impose “ballot security” measures across the country in 2012. The crudity of those efforts was almost painful to watch.

As Frank Rich noted, “The boosters of the new voting regulations would have us believe instead that their efforts are in response to a (nonexistent) rise in the country’s minuscule instances of voter fraud. Everyone knows these laws are in response to the rise of Barack Obama. It is also no coincidence that many of them were conceived and promoted by the American Legal Exchange Council, an activist outfit funded by heavy-hitting right-wing donors like Charles and David Koch.

“In another coincidence that the GOP would like to flush down the memory hole, the Kochs’ father, Fred, a founder of the radical John Birch Society in the fifties, was an advocate for the impeachment of Chief Justice Warren in the aftermath of Brown [v. Board of Education] Fred Koch wrote a screed of his own accusing communists of inspiring the civil-rights movement.”...

International Business news is a reputable source of information. You just don't want to admit that Ron Paul is caught red-handed with his klan cloak with his NSA spying billionaire and top funder campaign advisor Peter Theil by his side.

Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA’s venture arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel and his firm, The Founders Fund. Dr. Alex Karp is Palantir’s CEO.

The technologies and know-how acquired over years of spying on suspected foreign terrorists and threats were turned against US citizens. In what became known last year as “Chamber-gate,” Palantir was outed by Anonymous as the lead outfit in a private espionage consortium, with security technology companies HBGaryand Berico; the groups spent months “creating electronic dossiers on political opponents of the Chamber through illicit means.”

The hacktivist collective Anonymous set out to take down the white supremacist American Third Party (A3P) in what they called “Operation Blitzkrieg” but they may have done much more.

In a document dump that includes private forum messages, emails, organization notes another other information the group found numerous connections between Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and A3P. According to the documents, Paul himself regularly met with many A3P members, engaged in conference calls with their board of directors and engaged in a “bridging tactic” between A3P and the Ron Paul Revolution.

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”

In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb. 12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.”

Accusations of racism and ties to neo-Nazi interests have plagued Paul since the 1990s and have re-surfaced during this campaign. So far Paul has issued standard denials, claiming not to have been aware of the ties between his camp and the racist right and denied authorship of a series of racist newsletters, despite confirmation from his closest staff that Paul signed off on every detail. So what’s Paul’s explanation now?

Yet another embarrassment for Poser Boy, who for now on will be known as known as "tinkerbell", whose floating around in denial somewhere in Almost Almost Land... It's Wednesday EST, and Poser Boy is still posing...

... there is often a distinction made between the racist Right, which emerged from the struggle to maintain slavery and segregation, and the “small-government” Right, which supposedly represents a respectable conservatism focused on the libertarian ideals of personal freedom and free-market principles...

...Thus, prominent leaders of the “libertarian” Right – the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Ron and Rand Paul – have opposed major legislative efforts to combat Southern segregation, typically citing the “liberty” of a white restaurant owner to bar black patrons as trumping the right of the patrons to be treated fairly.

Similarly, on Tuesday, the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the freedom of states and communities with a history of racial discrimination in voting to change their voting rules without having to get clearance from federal authorities as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and renewed in 2006) had required.

The right of these districts to set their own standards topped the power of Congress to require that the principle of one person, one vote be respected for black and brown people, according to the Court’s five right-wing justices. Thus, the libertarianism behind “small government” principles again supported the goal of white supremacy...

...This unholy alliance between the racists and the libertarians continues to this day with Republicans understanding that the votes of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities must be suppressed if the twin goals of the two principal elements of the Right are to control the future. That was the significance of Tuesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority to gut the Voting Rights Act. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Supreme Court’s War on Democracy.”]

Only if the votes of whites can be proportionately enhanced and the votes of minorities minimized can the Republican Party overcome the country’s demographic changes and retain government power that will both advance the interests of the racists and the free-marketeers.

That’s why Republican-controlled statehouses engaged in aggressive gerrymandering of congressional districts in 2010 and tried to impose “ballot security” measures across the country in 2012. The crudity of those efforts was almost painful to watch.

As Frank Rich noted, “The boosters of the new voting regulations would have us believe instead that their efforts are in response to a (nonexistent) rise in the country’s minuscule instances of voter fraud. Everyone knows these laws are in response to the rise of Barack Obama. It is also no coincidence that many of them were conceived and promoted by the American Legal Exchange Council, an activist outfit funded by heavy-hitting right-wing donors like Charles and David Koch.

“In another coincidence that the GOP would like to flush down the memory hole, the Kochs’ father, Fred, a founder of the radical John Birch Society in the fifties, was an advocate for the impeachment of Chief Justice Warren in the aftermath of Brown [v. Board of Education] Fred Koch wrote a screed of his own accusing communists of inspiring the civil-rights movement.”...

Yet another set of meaninglessly libellous links (some of which I've already addressed) NOT proving BS claims about Ron Paul that lead to dead ends, posted by none other than tweedle-dumb.

Did I just see him criticize Lincoln for the Civil War in that speech and is that a Confederate flag he's standing in front of? What an unAmerican douchebag.

Notice how Spongebob is looking down at the next post by Disco Douche...appropriately?

Standing in front of a Confederate flag is un-American?! That comment right there is further proof that you're a fucking idiot. And while I know what you're implying and can understand why some people see it as racist, The Confederate flag is also considered by some as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North. But then again, according to you, the Dukes of Hazard and Lynyrd Skynyrd must be racists too?!

Did I just see him criticize Lincoln for the Civil War in that speech and is that a Confederate flag he's standing in front of? What an unAmerican douchebag.

Notice how Spongebob is looking down at the next post by Disco Douche...appropriately?

Standing in front of a Confederate flag is un-American?! That comment right there is further proof that you're a fucking idiot. And while I know what you're implying and can understand why some people see it as racist, The Confederate flag is also considered by some as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North. But then again, according to you, the Dukes of Hazard and Lynyrd Skynyrd must be racists too?!

...and speaking of douchebags...

The part where he criticized Lincoln, my country's most important and significant president, at the 3:18 mark, pretty much constitutes an absolute un-American douchebag of Confederate loving racist Nazi White Supremecist fuckface proportions. Fuck Ron Paul...really...fuck him right in his white ass. (I should make that the new name of this thread)

A close aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a former member of a pro-secessionist group who used to wear a luchador mask emblazoned with a Confederate flag under the moniker, "Southern Avenger."...

...In the decade before he joined Paul's campaign, Hunter provided conservative commentary on the radio and on his website under the guise of his pseudonymous Southern character. In a 2004 article posted to his site and uncovered by the Free Beacon, titled "John Wilkes Booth Was Right," Hunter argued that "Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place," and that Lincoln was, in fact, "one of the worst figures in American history."...

During Paul's 2010 Senate bid, he forced out his then-spokesman, Christopher Hightower, after a reporter discovered a note posted to Hightower's MySpace page on Martin Luther King Day that read "HAPPY N****R DAY!!!" alongside an image of a lynching.

Those controversies echo the same criticisms that dogged Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), during his presidential campaigns. In each of those bids, old newsletters bearing Paul's name and containing overtly racist messages surfaced...

Standing in front of a Confederate flag is un-American?! That comment right there is further proof that you're a fucking idiot. And while I know what you're implying and can understand why some people see it as racist, The Confederate flag is also considered by some as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North. But then again, according to you, the Dukes of Hazard and Lynyrd Skynyrd must be racists too?!

...and speaking of douchebags...

The part where he criticized Lincoln, my country's most important and significant president, at the 3:18 mark, pretty much constitutes an absolute un-American douchebag of Confederate loving racist Nazi White Supremecist fuckface proportions. Fuck Ron Paul...really...fuck him right in his white ass. (I should make that the new name of this thread)

You obviously have NO clue what RP was referring to if you think he was condemning Lincoln.

A close aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a former member of a pro-secessionist group who used to wear a luchador mask emblazoned with a Confederate flag under the moniker, "Southern Avenger."...

...In the decade before he joined Paul's campaign, Hunter provided conservative commentary on the radio and on his website under the guise of his pseudonymous Southern character. In a 2004 article posted to his site and uncovered by the Free Beacon, titled "John Wilkes Booth Was Right," Hunter argued that "Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place," and that Lincoln was, in fact, "one of the worst figures in American history."...

During Paul's 2010 Senate bid, he forced out his then-spokesman, Christopher Hightower, after a reporter discovered a note posted to Hightower's MySpace page on Martin Luther King Day that read "HAPPY N****R DAY!!!" alongside an image of a lynching.

Those controversies echo the same criticisms that dogged Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), during his presidential campaigns. In each of those bids, old newsletters bearing Paul's name and containing overtly racist messages surfaced...

Standing in front of a Confederate flag is un-American?! That comment right there is further proof that you're a fucking idiot. And while I know what you're implying and can understand why some people see it as racist, The Confederate flag is also considered by some as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North.....!

This is the nicest interpretation of the meaning of the Confederate Flag I've ever seen. Yes, it's a symbol of southern heritage, but it's the kind of south that was built upon slavery. It's a symbol of the old racist south, and no one who cares about human rights would be caught dead associating with it. Over the years, it's symbolism has been distilled down to a powerful statement of longing for the old, white owned south. That's my opinion. But it's a pretty much accepted view all over the country. You're off base on this one DB.......

_________________Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...

...totally off base. I suspect that deep down, he knows that it's racism, and that Ron and Rand Paul are indeed racists, you'd have to be a complete fool to not recognize it for what it is. It's not unlike Holocaust deniers who say "it never happened", then say, "but, we don't hate Jews".

If it were an isolated incident or two, then I can understand the doubts about it, but there are so many things and people who they are directly tied with and linked to, that they have gone far above and beyond any logical reasonable Nationalistic doubt. They are what they is.

The confederate flag, like a burning cross only symbolize the kind of freedom where one group of humans can have legal, financial and physical ownership of other humans. That's not freedom. That's fascism.

Standing in front of a Confederate flag is un-American?! That comment right there is further proof that you're a fucking idiot. And while I know what you're implying and can understand why some people see it as racist, The Confederate flag is also considered by some as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North.....!

This is the nicest interpretation of the meaning of the Confederate Flag I've ever seen. Yes, it's a symbol of southern heritage, but it's the kind of south that was built upon slavery. It's a symbol of the old racist south, and no one who cares about human rights would be caught dead associating with it. Over the years, it's symbolism has been distilled down to a powerful statement of longing for the old, white owned south. That's my opinion. But it's a pretty much accepted view all over the country. You're off base on this one DB.......

No, I'm not off base at all. I basically stated that it symbolically represents TWO different things for TWO different types of Southerners. And it DOES, regardless of whether or not Lefties like yourself who only seem to view it from one angle agree...

tweedle-dumb wrote:

...totally off base. I suspect that deep down, he knows that it's racism, and that Ron and Rand Paul are indeed racists, you'd have to be a complete fool to not recognize it for what it is. It's not unlike Holocaust deniers who say "it never happened", then say, "but, we don't hate Jews".

If it were an isolated incident or two, then I can understand the doubts about it, but there are so many things and people who they are directly tied with and linked to, that they have gone far above and beyond any logical reasonable Nationalistic doubt. They are what they is.

The confederate flag, like a burning cross only symbolize the kind of freedom where one group of humans can have legal, financial and physical ownership of other humans. That's not freedom. That's fascism.

No, I'm not off base at all. I basically stated that it symbolically represents TWO different things for TWO different types of Southerners. And it DOES, regardless of whether or not Lefties like yourself who only seem to view it from one angle agree....

You can calm down DB, I'm not looking for a fight here, and I'm not entering your fight with SB either. The confederate flag, to my knowledge, initially flew in the south as confederate soldiers fought like hell to keep slavery alive. It has morphed over time to be a fuzzy symbol of current and past southern culture, in addition to the obviously racist message it sends to, minimally, just about every black American north or south, as well as a hell of a lot of white people. It's a racist symbol.

That's all I have.

_________________Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...

Not exactly true, but a common framing of why the Civil War was fought. It was mostly about state's rights...the southern states that signed on to the union were under the impression that they would be able to maintain their individuality without interference from the Federal government.

To say that the rebels fought to maintain slavery is to not understand who actually fought the war. As in all wars, the poor fought. Rich people owned slaves, not every southern hillbilly. Slaves were necessary to maintain the comfort level of the rich southerners. The average southern bumpkin milked his own cows.

Of course, the Confederate flag can be seen as a racist symbol, but it is also a symbol of southern pride. They fought an awful war to keep their identities. Had they won, slavery would still have been banished one way or another. The Revolutionary War was fought in the name of freedom for the common man, so there was already a contradiction there, and science would have eventually won out over southern beliefs that black folks were not people.

Instead of forcing Union states into the Confederate south, as the Union did to the Confederacy, there would be two or more nations, and North America would look more like South America. The Untied States would probably have ceased to exist as such, with all of the good or bad that scenario might imply. Do we get angry when Texas flies its Lone Star flag at equal height with the American flag? After all, they fought an Hispanic nation to win their independence. Is the Lone Star flag a racist symbol? I'll bet some Mexicans see it as such. A lot of people around the world see the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of racist, bigoted, heartless war-mongering imperialists...

...but of course most Americans don't. They live under the flag, and were educated by the racist, bigoted imperialists who told them America was good and gooder.

Wars are not easily forgotten. The resentments last for generations.

It seems that some folks would like to fight the Civil War again.

According to Justice Watch, the Obama DOJ has been sending teams to Florida to help organize anti-Zimmerman protests.

Why? Because they would love some good old race riots to get us all riled against each other and distracted from the crimes they are committing.

Fomenting racial tensions is bad enough, but using tax money to do it is pretty scum-like. I do hope that if Zimmerman is acquitted, sane people will dominate and disregard the government-inserted instigators of violent protest.

A new book on the subject of the Civil War and why it was fought has come out.

This is a synopsis and review cut from Lew Rockwell.com

Historian and novelist Thomas Fleming is the author of more than fifty books, including two very good revisionist histories of the two world wars: The New Dealers’ War, and The Illusion of Victory in World War I. He has authored biographies of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and has written extensively about the founding generation, including his best-selling book, Liberty! As a regular on PBS and NPR he is as “mainstream” as it gets. That is, he was, until he published his latest book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.

No respectable historian believes the Deep North/government school fantasy that enlightened and morally-superior Northerners elected Abe Lincoln so that they could go to war and die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers in the “deep South.” And Thomas Fleming is as “respectable” as one gets in terms of contemporary writers of history. Fleming has discovered what scholars such as the late, great Murray Rothbard and the not-late-but-still-great Clyde Wilson wrote about many years ago: A war was not necessary to end slavery – the rest of the world did it peacefully; only 6 percent of adult Southern men owned slaves, which means that the average Confederate soldier was not fighting to preserve a system that actually harmed him and his family economically; and that the real cause of the war was what Fleming calls a “malevolent envy” of the South by New England “Yankees” who waged a war of economic conquest. In his own words, from the inside front cover of A Disease in the Public Mind:

[Northern] hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to

slavery. Abolitionists were convinced that New England, whose

spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been

the leaders of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by

Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson.

The inside cover of the book asks, “Why was the United States the only nation in the world to fight a war to end slavery?” The standard “answer” to this question, which I have asked many times in my own writings, is that Southern plantation owners were by far the most evil human beings in world history, far more evil than British slave owners, Spanish slave owners, or French, Danish , Dutch and Portugese slave owners. Therefore, no peacefull means of ending slavery was ever possible. This of course makes no sense at all, and Thomas Fleming recognizes it.

He points out that “Only 316,632 Southerners owned slaves – a mere 6 percent of the total white population.” This leads Fleming to ask the obvious question: “Why did the vast majority of the white population unite behind these slaveholders in this fratricidal war? Why did they sacrifice over 300,000 of their sons to preserve an institution in which they apparently had no personal stake?”

Fleming actually understates this point: Slavery only benefited the slave-owners who exploited the slaves but was economically harmful to all the rest of Southern society because slave labor is inherently inferior to free labor. The entire South was poorer as a result. Moreover, the average Confederate soldier, who was a yeoman farmer who owned no slaves, was harmed by the slave-owning plantation owners through unfair competition. That is why so many Northern states like Illinois banned the migration of blacks, free or slave, from their borders, and it is also the main reason why the Republican Party opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories – they wanted to “preserve them for free white labor,” as Lincoln himself once said. In every major Civil War battle Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves fought against (mostly border state) Union Army soldiers, such as Ulysses S. Grant, who did own slaves (Grant’s wife Julia, cousin of Confederate General James Longstreet, inherited slaves from her South Carolina family and Grant was the overseer of his father-in-law’s slave plantation for a period of time before the war).

Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.

John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men. “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . . The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.” Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the proslavery people.” He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.

Fleming discusses in great detail how John Brown came to replace Jesus Christ in the minds of Northern abolitionists, who adopted his mantra that blood must shed in order to eradicate sin. That is, if they were to be saved and sent to Heaven, there must be bloodshed, and the more the better. That is why peaceful emancipation was not achieved in America, writes Fleming: It was not stubborn and evil Southern plantation owners who were the problem, it was the bloodthirsty abolitionists.

John Brown “descended from Puritans” and was “the personification of a Puritan,” says Fleming. And he truly became a “god” to the New England “Yankees.” “Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed awe and near-worship of John Brown,” writes Fleming. He lavished praise on John Brown’s “religion of violence.” Emerson called Brown “that new saint” who “would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.” Henry David Thoreau said that “Brown was Jesus.” He was “the bravest and humanest man in the country,” said Thoreau with horribly clunky English. He described Brown in that way after learning of Brown’s execution of non-slaveowning, innocents in front of their wives and children. These men were clearly crazy, and their writings must have contributed a great deal to the “disease in the public mind.”

The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was also a John Brown worshipper. As a typical New England Yankee Garrison possessed “the prevailing attitude” of New Englanders in that “they were inclined to believe in the moral depravity of anyone who disagreed with them,” and had “an almost total lack of empathy” for their fellow countrymen in other parts of the country. This, says Fleming, was “a flaw that permeated the New England view of the rest of America.”

An abolitionist compatriot of Garrison’s named Henry C. Wright declared tht Jesus Christ was a “dead failure” for allowing slavery to exist, and insisted that “John Brown would be a power far more efficient” than Christ. Armed with such beliefs, Garrison and comrades waged a decades-long campaign of hatred against all Southerners. Their newspapers broadcast for decades that the South was “a province ruled by Satan” and was guilty of “four unforgiveable sins: violence, drunkenness, laziness, and sexual depravity.” “From Richmond to New Orleans, the Southern states are one great Sodom,” wrote one New England publication. Fleming writes that such frantic “theological somersaults” were strikingly similar to “the public frenzy that gripped Massachusetts during the witch trials . . .” And some people wonder why Southerners in 1861 no longer wanted to be part of a union that included New England Yankees.

Thomas Fleming has discovered historical truths that Clyde Wilson long ago wrote about. In an essay entitled “The Yankee Problem in American History” Wilson pointed out that “by Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks.” He, like others before him, used “the term [Yankee] historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, and lack of congeniality, [and] for ordering other people around . . . . They are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” “Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Clyde Wilson continues, “is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing.”

By 1860, writes Wilson, “The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions, by whipping up a frenzy of paranoia about the alleged plot of the South to spread slavery to the North,” the theme of Abe Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. Of course, that was never the plan and never a possibility, but the “diseased” public mind of the North, fueled by the slick political rhetoric of politicians like Lincoln, actually persuaded many in the North.

Clyde Wilson describes abolitionism in almost an identical fashion that Thomas Fleming does:

Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on

Sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights.

It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders

Were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s driving

Mission to establish Heaven on Earth . . . . Most abolitionists had

Little knowledge or interest in black people or knowledge of life in

The South . . . . many abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and

Blacks would disappear and the land repopulated by virtuous Yankees.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was one of these. He once predicted that since black people were, in his opinion, and “inferior race,” they would eventually “go the way of the Dodo Bird” and become extinct.

A Disease in the Public Mind is filled with scorn for the abolitionists and their un-American beliefs, including their belief of the inferiority of black people. By failing to know anything at all about Southern society, never spending any time there, writes Fleming, the abolitionists did not understand that many of the slaves were highly skilled and talented blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, farmers, and artisans of all sorts. This ignorance has led generations of Yankees, including many of today’s “liberals,” to believe that because of slavery, the descendants of slaves “would have to be treated like children, at best, or creatures form an alien planet at worst.”

Thomas Fleming would likely be in complete agreement with Murray Rothbard, as well as Clyde Wilson, on the nature of mid-nineteenth century “Yankees.” Rothbard wrote in his essay, “Just War,” that:

[T]he North’s driving force, the ‘Yankees’—that ethnocultural group

who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate

New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern

Illinois – had been swept by . . . a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism

driven by a fervent ‘postmillenialism’ which held that as a precondition

dor the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-

year Kingdom of God on Earth. The Kingdom is to be a perfect society.

In order to be perfect, of course, this Kingdom must be free of sin . . . . If

you didn’t . . . stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved

(emphasis added).

This is why, said Rothbard, the “Northern war against slavery partook of a fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle. They were Pattersonian humanitarians with the guillotine: the Anabaptists, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks of their era.”

Thomas Fleming points out that the husband of Julia Ward Howe, author of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” was one of the financiers of John Brown’s terrorist mass murder sprees. Her song replaced “John Brown’s Body” as the Yankee anthem as it celebrated the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

Thomas Fleming discusses many other historical facts in A Disease in the Public Mind that yours truly has also written about and been denounced as a a liar, a slavery defender, a “Neo-Confederate,” and worse. He praises Thomas Jefferson for being among the first American statesmen to propose the peaceful emancipation of Southern slaves. He describes in detail the breathtaking hypocrisy of New Englanders who “rediscovered the sacred union,” he writes sarcastically, after having plotted to secede from the union for a dozen years after Jefferson’s election as president.

Fleming also writes of how the “Yankees” habitually attempted to plunder the South with protectionist tariffs that protected their manufacturers from competition. He understood that the Republican Party’s opposition to the extension of slavery into the new territories was based on their wish of “Free Soil for Free (White) Men,” the title of chapter 19. That is, they wanted a Homestead Act that would hand out free land to white settlers while banning the existence of all black people, free or slave. He quotes Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greely explaining that his “paramount objective” was to “save the union” and not to end slavery.

In his final chapter Thomas Fleming writes about Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was an officer in Lincoln’s army who was wounded in battle. After the war, “For seventy years, he repeatedly condemned the abolitionists and others who claimed they had a message from some higher power that everyone had to obey. Above all he voiced his contempt for people whose claim to certitude often persuaded other men to kill each other.” If this sounds familiar, it is because it has been the guiding principle of American foreign policy ever since 1865.

Revisionist history is any history you don't like, or that wasn't taught by the government-paid faculty at your high school, right SPACEBROTHER forum entity?

The Civil War was not fought between angelic Northerners and evil Southerners. It was not fought over slavery. I knew this many years ago, when I was still a stinky hippie. What I did not know is how many northern abolitionists were enthusiastic supporters of John Brown and his righteous terrorism.

Get over yourselves, SPACEBROTHER forum entity. You are wrong on this, and your assertion that the Confederate flag is just a racist symbol. It's no more a racist symbol than the American flag is...and I just presented the evidence.

So, capitulate, and admit. I am correct, and you are incorrect. It won't hurt. I am willing to confess when I am wrong, if that ever happens...

I could go on to discuss Fort Sumpter at great length, because some of us actually paid attention in school during US History classes, instead of smoking pot and sleeping through it in hippy type fashion, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that Ron and Rand Paul are racists and the people they surround themselves with racists. Using pro-slavery corporate propaganda that's nearly a century and a half old proves exactly ZILCH.

One thing for sure though, it's inevitable that America's first black president faces prejudices that are deeply rooted in a culture of hatred and supremacy. Slavery was legal in the USA for longer than it hasn't. Slavery still exists today with human trafficking and what not.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum